Psychological Science http://pss.sagepub.com/

Perceiving Social Inequity: When Subordinate-Group Positioning on One Dimension of Social Hierarchy Enhances Privilege Recognition on Another Ashleigh Shelby Rosette and Leigh Plunkett Tost Psychological Science 2013 24: 1420 originally published online 5 June 2013 DOI: 10.1177/0956797612473608

The online version of this article can be found at: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/24/8/1420

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Association for Psychological Science

Additional services and information for Psychological Science can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://pss.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://pss.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Aug 9, 2013

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jun 5, 2013

What is This?

Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on September 29, 2014 PSSXXX10.1177/0956797612473608Rosette, TostPerceiving Social Inequity 473608research-article2013

Research Article

Psychological Science 24(8) 1420–1427­ Perceiving Social Inequity: When © The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Subordinate-Group Positioning on One DOI: 10.1177/0956797612473608 Dimension of Social Hierarchy Enhances pss.sagepub.com Privilege Recognition on Another

Ashleigh Shelby Rosette1 and Leigh Plunkett Tost2 1Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, and 2Ross School of Business, University of Michigan

Abstract Researchers have suggested that viewing social inequity as dominant-group privilege (rather than subordinate-group disadvantage) enhances dominant-group members’ support for social policies aimed at lessening such inequity. However, because viewing inequity as dominant-group privilege can be damaging to dominant-group members’ self-images, this perspective is frequently resisted. In the research reported here, we explored the circumstances that enhance the likelihood of dominant-group members’ viewing inequity as privilege. Because social hierarchies have multiple vertical dimensions, individuals may have high status on one dimension but low status on another. We predicted that occupying a subordinate position on one dimension of social hierarchy could enhance perceptions of one’s own privilege on a different dimension of hierarchy, but that this tendency would be diminished among individuals who felt they had achieved a particularly high level of success. Results from three studies that considered gender-based and race-based hierarchies in organizational settings supported our hypothesis.

Keywords privilege, status, disadvantage, hierarchy, race, gender, social perception, racial and ethnic attitudes and relations

Received 8/4/12; Revision accepted 11/29/12

To varying degrees, social inequity is a persistent charac- Although these two perspectives represent different teristic of many contemporary work environments. For framings of the same phenomenon (i.e., relatively unfa- example, when matched on similar attributes, Whites are vorable organizational experiences for subordinate groups likely to have better job opportunities and promotions and relatively favorable organizational experiences for than are racial minorities, men have to circumvent fewer dominant groups), existing research has highlighted the barriers to career advancement than do women, importance of distinguishing (both theoretically and Protestants maintain strongholds in corporate cultures empirically) between perceptions of discrimination and relative to Jews and Catholics, and heterosexuals benefit perceptions of privilege (Lowery, Knowles, & Unzueta, from more organizational entitlements than do homosex- 2007; Swim & Miller, 1999). This distinction is important in uals (see Rosette & Thompson, 2005, for a review). part because privilege framing (relative to discrimination The historically prevailing perspective frames these framing) has been shown to increase dominant-group various types of social inequity in organizations as members’ support for policies aimed at mitigating ineq- emerging from discrimination: systematic biases that hin- uity (Chow & Galak, 2012; Iyer, Colin, & Crosby, 2003; der the advancement of subordinate-group members Lowery, Chow, Knowles, & Unzueta, 2012). Given the (e.g., Dovidio & Gaertner, 1986; Lott & Maluso, 1995). A less frequently considered perspective is that social ineq- Corresponding Author: uity in organizations results from the systematic gains Ashleigh Shelby Rosette, Fuqua School of Business, 100 Fuqua Dr., and privilege that members of dominant groups experi- P. O. Box 90120, Durham, NC 27708-0120 ence (e.g., Wildman, 1996). E-mail: [email protected]

Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on September 29, 2014 Perceiving Social Inequity 1421

critical impact that recognition of privilege has on the may hold great promise for developing a better under- motivation to rectify inequity, it is important that scholars standing of the circumstances under which individuals develop a greater understanding of the antecedents of are inclined (or disinclined) to acknowledge their own dominant-group members’ perceptions of their advan- experiences of social privilege. taged state. We argue that occupying a subordinate position on Scholars have only recently begun to directly examine one dimension of hierarchy enhances perceptions of an the factors that promote or hinder individuals’ tendencies individual’s own privileges (derived from dominant- to recognize their own privileged positions. For example, group membership on a separate dimension), provided in a recent study, Lowery and his colleagues (2007) dem- that the individual believes he or she has experienced onstrated that resistance to viewing inequity as privilege disadvantages as a result of membership in the subordi- may occur because privilege framing can have a damag- nate group. The experience of disadvantage is imperative ing effect on dominant-group members’ self-concepts. because it draws attention to the difference between However, this burgeoning area of study has yet to explore one’s own experience and the privileged experience the interconnected nature of social hierarchies. In social of those in the dominant group. This divergence high- settings, multiple dimensions of hierarchy interact and lights that one’s own disadvantage is accompanied by combine to form an overarching social-ranking system, others’ advantages. For example, the disadvantage Peggy and individuals may occupy differing vertical positions McIntosh experienced as a member of a subordinate along different dimensions of hierarchy (e.g., Stryker & gender group (i.e., women) made the privilege from Macke, 1978). We argue that simultaneous memberships which the dominant gender group (i.e., men) benefitted in a dominant social group on one dimension of hierar- apparent to her. The recognition that others are privi- chy and a subordinate group on a different dimension leged relative to oneself on one dimension of hierarchy may serve as an impetus to the recognition of the privi- can promote the recognition that, along a separate lege experienced by virtue of membership in the domi- dimension, one has privilege relative to others. This nant group. notion that the experience of disadvantage initiates more In perhaps one of the most influential essays on privi- complex perceptions of social hierarchies is consistent lege perceptions, Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack, with a range of empirical findings in social psychology Peggy McIntosh (1988), a White woman, described how that have shown that subordinate groups with height- her unsuccessful bid to persuade her male colleagues to ened perceptions of disadvantage perceive commonality incorporate women’s studies into her college’s curricu- with other subordinate groups (Sanchez, 2008), are more lum led to her own personal revelation of social inequity tolerant of stigmatized groups than are dominant groups framed as privilege. She observed that her male col- (Galanis & Jones, 1986), and are particularly inclined to leagues frequently acknowledged the disadvantage expe- adopt contextual explanations for their experiences rienced by women relative to men (i.e., gender inequity (Kraus, Piff, & Keltner, 2009). framed as subordinate-group disadvantage) but did not However, just as there are multiple dimensions of recognize the corresponding advantage that they experi- hierarchy based on ascribed (i.e., demographic) charac- enced as males (i.e., gender inequity framed as dominant- teristics, there are also dimensions based on achieved group privilege). Recognizing her male colleagues’ resis- characteristics (Linton, 1936). We suggest that an indi- tance to acknowledging male privilege led McIntosh to vidual’s perceptions of personal success represent a consider that there must also be a phenomenon of racial boundary condition of these effects. Specifically, individ- privilege of which she was a beneficiary but had been uals who experience particularly high success despite previously disinclined to perceive (McIntosh, 1988). membership in a subordinate group are less likely than Although the example of McIntosh is anecdotal, it is their less successful peers to feel that they have experi- consistent with numerous theoretical perspectives on the enced disadvantage because of their subordinate-group multidimensional nature of social hierarchies, including membership. Indeed, their very level of success can be status inconsistency theory (Stryker & Macke, 1978) and taken as evidence that disadvantage is not necessarily intersectional frameworks (Berdahl & Moore, 2006; associated with subordinate-group membership. Without Crenshaw, 1989; Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008). Work experiencing feelings of disadvantage, they lack the in this area has suggested that the psychological experi- motivation and perspective to actively consider the ence of having high status on one dimension of hierarchy advantages that dominant-group members experience; and low status on another can have a broad range of consequently, there is little opportunity for them to iden- effects on individuals’ social perceptions. Building on tify their own parallel experience of privilege along these research traditions, we suggest that a more nuanced other dimensions of hierarchy. As a result, memberships view of social hierarchies that acknowledges that indi- in subordinate groups are less likely to serve as catalysts viduals occupy multiple social groups simultaneously for highly successful individuals’ recognition of their

Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on September 29, 2014 1422 Rosette, Tost privileged position on a different dimension of social Perceptions of success. To assess the extent to which hierarchy. participants perceived themselves as successful, we had In sum, we expected that among people who do not them indicate their agreement with the statement “In my experience exceptionally high levels of success, member- current occupation, I am successful.” Participants rated ship in a subordinate group should increase perceptions their level of agreement, using a scale from 1 (strongly of disadvantage. The contrast between one’s own experi- disagree) to 7 (strongly agree; M = 5.64, SD = 1.09). ence of disadvantage and dominant-group members’ positive experiences (within that dimension of hierarchy) Results and discussion should increase the recognition that one’s own disadvan- tage is accompanied by privilege for others. This realiza- We tested our prediction by regressing the measure of tion that others experience privilege on one dimension perceived White privilege on a gender dummy variable of hierarchy should facilitate the recognition of one’s (0 = male, 1 = female), the measure of perceived success own experience of privilege on another dimension of (centered), and the interaction between gender and per- hierarchy. ceived success; the interaction was significant, b = −0.48, SE = 0.13, p < .001. Consistent with our predictions, Study 1 results revealed that among participants who reported moderate levels of perceived success, women reported In Study 1, we considered the perceptions of Whites in higher perceived White privilege than did men, b = 0.49, organizational settings. We predicted that White women SE = 0.08, p < .01, but this pattern was not found among (who, in most organizations, occupy a subordinate gen- participants who reported high levels of perceived suc- der group and a dominant racial group) would be more cess (see Fig. 1). It is important to note that although we inclined to recognize White privilege than would White evaluated the simple slopes at 1 standard deviation above men (who, in most organizations, occupy a dominant and below the mean for perceived-success scores, the gender group and a dominant racial group). We expected, mean score was higher than the neutral score of 4 on the however, that this effect would not emerge among White rating scale, t(281) = 25.18, p < .0001. Thus, participants women and men who had relatively high levels of per- who exhibited our predicted effect did not report feel- ceived personal success. ings of failure or low levels of perceived success but, rather, moderate levels of perceived success. Method Interestingly, women with high levels of perceived success reported lower levels of perceived White privi- Participants and procedure. A total of 282 White lege than did men with high levels of perceived success, working professionals who were employed full-time b = −0.47, SE = 0.18, p = .01. This finding was not pre- (49% female, 51% male; mean age = 44.55 years, SD = dicted but nonetheless is consistent with our theoretical 12.12) participated in this study by completing an online rationale and with research by Frankenberg (1993), who questionnaire in exchange for monetary compensation. showed that highly successful middle-class White women In the first part of the online questionnaire, participants answered background questions about their demograph- Women ics and employment. They then responded to questions 3.5 Men that assessed their perceptions of success and White priv- ilege in their respective work organizations. 3.0

Perceptions of White privilege. The measure of per- ceptions of White privilege contained the following items 2.5 (adapted from Swim & Miller, 1999): “At my workplace, White people have certain advantages that racial minori- 2.0 ties do not have”; “Status as a White person grants many unearned privileges at my workplace”; “Being White

Perceived White Privilege 1.5 at my workplace opens many doors”; “In the workplace, White people are viewed more positively than are racial minorities”; and “I do not feel that White people have 1.0 any benefits or privileges due to their race at my work- Moderate Success High Success (–1 SD) (+1 SD) place” (reverse-scored). Responses to items were on Perceived Success scales anchored with 1 (strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly agree), and scores for all items were averaged (composite Fig. 1. Regression results from Study 1: mean levels of perceived mean = 2.39, SD = 1.12; α = .77). White privilege as a function of perceived success and gender.

Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on September 29, 2014 Perceiving Social Inequity 1423 were not prone to acknowledge similarities between Results gender inequity and racial inequity. We discuss this find- ing in the General Discussion section.1 As in Study 1, we began by regressing the measure of perceived White privilege on a dummy variable for gen- der (0 = male, 1 = female), the measure of perceived Study 2 success (centered), and the interaction between the two; In Study 2, we sought to replicate the focal interaction the interaction was significant, b = −0.94, SE = 0.44, p = from Study 1 and to test the mediating roles of percep- .036. Consistent with our predictions, results showed that tions of gender-based disadvantage and awareness of among participants who reported moderate levels of per- male privilege. Specifically, we tested a three-stage medi- ceived success, women reported higher levels of per- ated path in which gender predicted the experience of ceived White privilege than did men, b = 1.35, SE = 0.66, (gender-based) disadvantage, which increased percep- p = .04, but this effect was not found among participants who reported high levels of perceived success, b = −0.53, tions of male privilege (i.e., gender inequity framed as 2 dominant-group privilege), which in turn increased per- SE = 0.48, p = .27 (see Fig. 2). ceptions of White privilege (i.e., racial inequity framed as We next examined our three-stage moderated media- dominant-group privilege). We expected that this three- tion prediction, following procedures recommended by stage path would be moderated in the first stage by per- Edwards and Lambert (2007). We began by regressing the ceptions of success. experience of gender disadvantage on the dummy vari- able for gender, the measure of success, and the interac- tion between the two. Both main effects were significant: Method There was a positive effect of gender, b = 1.24, SE = 0.43, Participants and procedure. A total of 71 White p < .01, and a negative effect of success, b = −0.59, SE = graduate students (53% male, 47% female) participated in 0.26, p < .03. The interaction was marginally significant, this study in return for a snack while awaiting a chance b = −0.90, SE = 0.53, p < .10. In support of our predictions, to win basketball tickets (mean age = 26.48 years, SD = our results showed that women were significantly more 2.68). All participants had been employed prior to attend- likely to report the experience of gender disadvantage ing graduate school. Participants were instructed to com- than were men, but only if they also reported a moderate plete a questionnaire, to consider their status as graduate level of success—moderate success: b = 2.36, SE = 0.79, students as their occupation, and to consider their respec- p = .003; high success: b = 0.56, SE = 0.58, p = .34. tive departments or schools as their organization. The To examine the next stage in the causal path, we first measures for perceptions of success (M = 6.00, SD = 0.86) regressed the measure of perceived male privilege on the and White privilege (M = 2.29, SD = 1.50; α = .77) dummy variable for gender and the measure of success; included the same items as those used in Study 1. only gender was significant, b = 1.03, SE = 0.40, p = .013. In the second step, we entered the interaction between Personal experience of gender disadvantage. To gender and perceived success, b = −1.69, SE = 0.45, assess the extent to which participants felt they had experienced disadvantages because of their gender, we asked them to indicate the extent to which they agreed Women Men that they had experienced disadvantage in their organiza- 3.5 tion as a result of their gender. The response scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree; M = 2.42, 3.0 SD = 1.85). 2.5 Perceptions of male privilege. We adapted the mea- sure of perceived White privilege to measure perceived male privilege, using the following items: “In this organi- 2.0 zation, men have certain advantages that women do not have”; “Status as a man grants many unearned privileges 1.5 Perceived White Privilege in this organization”; “Being a man in this organization opens many doors”; “I feel that men receive benefits due 1.0 to their gender in this organization”; and “In the work- Moderate Success High Success place, men are viewed more positively than are women.” (–1 SD) (+1 SD) Perceived Success Responses were measured on scales anchored with 1 (strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly agree), and scores for Fig. 2. Regression results from Study 2: mean levels of perceived all items were averaged (M = 3.27, SD = 1.65; α = .95). White privilege as a function of perceived success and gender.

Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on September 29, 2014 1424 Rosette, Tost

p < .001. In the third step, we entered the measure of Method personal experience of gender disparity, which was sig- 3 nificant, b = 0.70, SE = 0.18, p < .001, and reduced the A total of 145 men (44% White; 56% racial minority) who size of the interaction, b = −1.35, SE = 0.42, p = .002. were employed full-time participated in this study by To examine the third stage in the causal path, we first completing an online questionnaire in exchange for regressed the measure of perceptions of White privilege monetary compensation (mean age = 41.82 years, SD = on the dummy variable for gender and the measure of 10.92). The measures of perceived male privilege (M = success (neither were significant). In the second step, we 2.89, SD = 1.59; α = .92) and perceived White privilege entered the interaction between gender and success. In (M = 3.19, SD = 1.97; α = .98) in the online questionnaire the third step, we entered the measure of perceived male were similar to those used in Studies 1 and 2. To assess privilege, which was significant, b = 0.80, SE = 0.18, p < perceived success, we had participants indicate their .001, and reduced the interaction to nonsignificance, b = agreement with three statements: “In my current job, I am −0.07, SE = 0.44, p = .88. successful”; “In my current job, I am able to prosper”; On the basis of the results of these regressions, we and “In my current job, I am able to thrive.” Participants then used the bootstrap procedure to construct bias- rated their level of agreement with each statement using corrected confidence intervals (CIs) to test the signifi- scales from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), and cance of the indirect effects at high and moderate levels scores for the three items were averaged (composite of perceived success (Edwards & Lambert, 2007; Shrout mean = 5.06, SD = 1.25; α = .89). & Bolger, 2002). We found that the indirect effect of gen- der on White-privilege perceptions, mediated in two Results steps through the personal experience of gender-based disadvantage and perceptions of male privilege, was sig- We tested our central prediction by regressing the mea- nificant for participants who reported a moderate level of sure of perceived male privilege on a dummy variable for success, 95% bias-corrected CI = [.26, .37], but not for race (0 = White, 1 = racial minority), the measure of per- participants who reported a relatively high level of suc- ceived success (centered), and the interaction between cess, 95% bias-corrected CI = [−.17, 1.16]. the two. There was a significant main effect of race, b = −0.97, SE = 0.25, p < .001, and the interaction between race and perceived success was significant, b = 0.51, SE = Discussion 0.26, p = .046. Consistent with our predictions, results Study 2 replicated the central finding from Study 1, fur- showed that among participants who reported moderate ther supporting our prediction that White women should levels of success, racial-minority men reported higher be more inclined to perceive White privilege than should levels of perceived male privilege than did White men, White men, except when they experience particularly b = −1.48, SE = 0.36, p < .001, but this effect did not emerge among participants with high levels of perceived high levels of success. The results of Study 2 also pro- 4 vided support for our three-stage causal path, in which success, b = −0.45, SE = 0.36, p = .21 (see Fig. 3). the interactive effect of gender and success on percep- We next examined our moderated mediation predic- tions of White privilege among Whites is mediated in two tion. Specifically, we expected first-stage moderated steps by perceptions of gender discrimination and per- mediation, such that there would be an effect of race on ceptions of male privilege. perceptions of White privilege, but only among men who reported a relatively moderate level of success in their Study 3 organization. We expected that this perception of White privilege would in turn have a positive effect on percep- In Study 3, we sought to consider the generalizability of tions of male privilege. our findings. Studies 1 and 2 provided evidence that To explore this prediction, we again used the Edwards holding a subordinate gender position enhances percep- and Lambert (2007) procedure. We began by regressing tions of one’s own race-based privileges, except for indi- perceived White privilege on the dummy variable for viduals who perceive themselves as being highly race, the measure of success, and the interaction between successful. If this phenomenon generalizes across the the two. There was a significant main effect of race, b = various dimensions of hierarchy that are common in −1.96, SE = 0.29, p < .001, and the interaction between organizations, we would expect racial-minority men to race and success was significant, b = 0.63, SE = 0.29, p = be more inclined than White men to perceive male privi- .03. Minority men reported higher levels of perceived lege (unless they perceive themselves to be highly suc- White privilege than did White men, but this effect cessful). Moreover, we would expect this effect to be was stronger among participants who reported moderate mediated by perceptions of White privilege. We tested levels of success, b = −1.48, SE = 0.36, p < .001, than these predictions in Study 3. among participants who reported high levels of success,

Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on September 29, 2014 Perceiving Social Inequity 1425

Racial-Minority Men mediator, awareness of dominant-group privilege (male 4.0 White Men privilege), among Whites reporting a high level of suc- cess. However, in Study 3, there was an effect of subordi- nate social group (race) on the mediator, awareness of 3.5 dominant-group privilege (White privilege); the effect was significantly smaller for those reporting a high level of success, but it persisted. Consequently, even though 3.0 there was not a significant direct effect of race on percep- tions of male privilege for participants who reported high 2.5 levels of success, the indirect effect through perceptions of White privilege remained.

2.0

Perceived Male Privilege General Discussion

1.5 Our three studies showed consistent support for our pre- diction: Individuals who hold a subordinate position on one dimension of social hierarchy are more likely than 1.0 individuals who hold a dominant position on the same Moderate Success High Success dimension to perceive their own privilege along a sepa- (–1 SD) (+1 SD) rate dimension of hierarchy, except when they experi- Perceived Success ence a particularly high level of success. The results of Fig. 3. Regression results for men from Study 3: mean levels of per- the studies also support our argument that these effects ceived male privilege as a function of perceived success and race. are mediated by perceptions of disadvantage and by the recognition of corresponding forms of privilege. This research brings to the forefront the study of the multidi- b = −1.33, SE = 0.41, p < .001. We next regressed the mea- mensional nature of status hierarchies in organizations, a sure of perceived male privilege on the dummy variable perspective that has a long history in sociology (e.g., for race, the measure of success, the measure of per- Stryker & Macke, 1978) and that has gained increasing ceived White privilege, and the interaction between suc- importance in social psychology and organizational stud- cess and race. The effect of perceived White privilege ies (e.g., Blader & Chen, 2012; Fast, Halevy, & Galinsky, was significant, b = 0.30, SE = 0.07, p < .001, and the size 2012; Fragale, Overbeck, & Neale, 2011; Halevy, Chou, of the interaction was reduced and not significant, b = Cohen, & Livingston, 2012; Tost, Gino, & Larrick, in 0.33, SE = 0.24, p = .19. We then used the bootstrap pro- press). cedure to construct bias-corrected CIs for the indirect In addition to the results that provide support for our effects. We found that the indirect effect of race on per- predictions, two noteworthy findings also warrant con- ceived male privilege, mediated through perceived White sideration. First, in Study 1, highly successful White privilege, was moderated by success, such that the indi- women reported lower perceptions of White privilege rect effect was significantly stronger for participants who than did highly successful White men. Second, in Study reported a moderate level of success, b = −0.77, 95% 2, there was a positive effect of success on perceptions of bias-corrected CI = [−1.33, −.33], than for participants White privilege among men. Although neither of these who reported a high level of success, b = −0.40; 95% effects was replicated in our other studies, they are both bias-corrected CI = [−.87, −.11]. consistent with a theoretical proposition that merits fur- ther investigation. Discussion Specifically, it is possible that women who experience particularly high levels of success not only are disinclined The findings from Study 3 indicate that our focal phe- to perceive that they have experienced disadvantage (as nomenon does indeed generalize beyond the effect of we predicted) but also, under certain circumstances, are gender on recognition of White privilege. Specifically, we more susceptible than successful men to the self-image found that racial-minority men were more inclined to threat posed by privilege framing. The perception of perceive male privilege than were White men, except racial privilege may threaten a White individual’s self- when they experienced relatively high levels of success. image because it can challenge the view that one’s suc- It is important to note, however, that the mediating mech- cess was achieved entirely on the basis of personal merit anism in this study was slightly different from that (Lowery et al., 2007; Rosette & Thompson, 2005). Given observed in Study 2. In Study 2, there was no significant that highly successful women frequently occupy roles effect of subordinate social group (gender) on the and positions that are male dominated (Helfat, Harris, &

Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on September 29, 2014 1426 Rosette, Tost

Wolfson, 2006), they may view their professional status, 4. An examination of the interaction with race as a modera- as well as credit granted to them for their successes, as tor revealed a marginally significant negative effect of success more tenuous than that of their male peers. This sense of on perceptions of male privilege among racial-minority men, insecurity may heighten the self-image threat brought b = −0.28, SE = 0.17, p = .101. There was no effect of success about by privilege framing. By contrast, highly successful on perceptions of male privilege among White men, b = 0.24, SE = 0.19, p = .22. men may experience less status insecurity, leading them to be somewhat less susceptible to the self-image threat References of privilege framing (and therefore more inclined to per- ceive privilege). We believe that these possibilities merit Berdahl, J., & Moore, C. (2006). Workplace harassment: further research. Double jeopardy for minority women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 426–436. The most critical contribution of this research is that it Blader, S., & Chen, Y. (2012). Differentiating the effects of sta- advances knowledge about the circumstances under tus and power: A justice perspective. Journal of Personality which individuals recognize the existence of systems of and Social Psychology, 102, 994–1014. privilege from which they themselves benefit. Making Chow, R. M., & Galak, J. (2012). The effect of inequality frames individuals aware of their own privilege activates a moti- on support for redistributive tax policies. Psychological vation to mitigate inequity (Chow & Galak, 2012; Iyer Science, 23, 1467–1469. et al., 2003; Lowery et al., 2012), thus placing that motiva- Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race tion in the hands of the very people most empowered and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doc- to address it (dominant-group members). The denial of trine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of privilege, on the other hand, can contribute to misunder- Chicago Legal Forum, Vol. 1989, 139–167. standing and conflict that can keep organizations from Dovidio, J., & Gaertner, S. (1986). Prejudice, discrimination, and racism. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. leveraging the benefits of diversity. Thus, it is critical that Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating researchers continue to develop a deeper understanding moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework of the factors that influence individuals’ perceptions of using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, privilege in organizations. 1–22. Fast, N., Halevy, N., & Galinsky, A. (2012). The destructive Author Contributions nature of power without status. Journal of Experimental A. S. Rosette developed the study concept and collected the Social Psychology, 48, 391–394. data. Both A. S. Rosette and L. P. Tost contributed to the theory Fragale, A., Overbeck, J., & Neale, M. (2011). Resource versus development, study design, data analysis, and drafting of the respect: Social judgments based on targets’ power and sta- manuscript. Both authors approved the final version of the tus position. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, manuscript for submission. 767–775. Frankenberg, R. (1993). White women, race matters: The social Declaration of Conflicting Interests construction of Whiteness. London, England: Routledge. Galanis, C. M. B., & Jones, E. E. (1986). When stigma confronts The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with stigma: Some conditions enhancing a victim’s tolerance of respect to their authorship or the publication of this article. other victims. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 169–177. Notes Halevy, N., Chou, E., Cohen, T., & Livingston, R. (2012). Status 1. Although our theoretical model included perceived success conferral in intergroup social dilemmas: Behavioral ante- as the moderator, we also examined gender as the moderator. cedents and consequences of prestige and dominance. We found that success had a negative effect on perceptions of Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 351–366. White privilege among women, b = −0.49, SE = 0.10, p = .01, Helfat, C. E., Harris, D., & Wolfson, P. J. (2006). The pipeline whereas success had no effect on perceptions of White privi- to the top: Women and men in the top executive ranks of lege among men, b = −0.02, SE = 0.08, p = .85. U.S. corporations. Academy of Management Perspectives, 2. The finding from Study 1—that highly successful women 20(4), 42–64. reported lower levels of perceived White privilege than did Iyer, A., Colin, W., & Crosby, F. (2003). White guilt and racial highly successful men—was not replicated in Study 2. With compensation: The benefits and limits of self-focus. gender as the moderator, we found no effect of success on Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 117–129. perceptions of White privilege among women, b = −0.43, SE = Kraus, M. W., Piff, K. P., & Keltner, D. (2009). Social class, sense 0.36, p = .23. However, we found a positive effect of success on of control, and social explanation. Journal of Personality perceptions of White privilege among men, b = 0.52, SE = 0.26, and Social Psychology, 97, 992–1004. p = .053. We discuss this finding in the General Discussion Linton, R. (1936). The study of man. New York, NY: D. section. Appleton-Century. 3. Of the 81 racial-minority men, 33 were Asian, 25 were Lott, B., & Maluso, D. (1995). The social psychology of interper- Black, and 23 were Hispanic. No differences (in terms of main sonal discrimination. New York, NY: Guilford Press. effects or interactions) were noted among the racial-minority Lowery, B. S., Chow, R. M., Knowles, E. D., & Unzueta, M. M. groups. (2012). Paying for positive group esteem: How inequity

Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on September 29, 2014 Perceiving Social Inequity 1427

frames affect Whites’ response to redistributive policies. Sanchez, G. R. (2008). Latino group consciousness and per- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 323–336. ceptions of commonality with African Americans. Social Lowery, B. S., Knowles, E. D., & Unzueta, M. M. (2007). Framing Science Quarterly, 89, 428–444. inequality safely: The motivated denial of White privilege. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1237–1251. and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recom- McIntosh, P. (1988). White privilege and male privilege: A per- mendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445. sonal account of coming to see correspondences through Stryker, S., & Macke, A. (1978). Status inconsistency and role work in women’s studies (Wellesley College Center for conflict. Annual Review of Sociology, 4, 57–90. Research on Women Working Paper No. 189). Retrieved Swim, J. K., & Miller, D. L. (1999). White guilt: Its anteced- from www.iub.edu/~tchsotl/part2/McIntosh%20White%20 ents and consequences for attitudes toward affirmative Privilege.pdf action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Eibach, R. P. (2008). Intersectional invisi- 500–514. bility: The distinctive advantages and disadvantages of mul- Tost, L. P., Gino, F., & Larrick, R. P. (in press). When power tiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles, 59, 377–391. makes others speechless: The negative impact of leader Rosette, A. S., & Thompson, L. L. (2005). The camouflage effect: power on team performance. Academy of Management Separating achieved status and unearned privilege in orga- Journal. nizations. In M. A. Neale, E. A. Mannix, & M. Thomas-Hunt Wildman, S. (1996). Privilege revealed: How invisible preference (Eds.), Research on managing teams and groups (Vol. 7, undermines America. New York, NY: New York University pp. 259–281). Stanford, CA: Stanford Press. Press.

Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on September 29, 2014